Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.32] Mr. WIGGINS. Well, we now know as a result of the splendid contribution of friend from Ohio that, the President did not, learn of these activities with respect to Dr. Fielding for nearly 18 months after they happened. It is the first time he learned about it. And now the question IS should he be impeached. should he be impeached because be, took improper act, upon learning of that activity. The President, without question, ladies and gentlemen regarded The Pentagon Papers matter as a national security issue. It is idle to talk about whether a conviction is proper under the Espionage Acts, those acts, as my colleagues at the desk know, involving a foreign power. It was not the motive of Dr. Ellsberg, ladies and gentlemen, it was the fact of the disclosure. Whatever his motive that prejudiced the United States of America. And the President's actions were prompted by reason of the fact of the disclosure rather than any subjective motive of Dr. Ellsberg to aid a foreign power, a fact which 'Would be very important in a prosecution under the Espionage Acts. That is the issue. That Is the issue, whether or not after the 17th of March 1973, when the President learned of an act which happened about a year and one-half prior to that, whether he acted prudently given his state of knowledge and belief -.it that time. And I am telling you that the weight of the evidence, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that Richard Nixon believed the Pentagon Papers Was a national security issue, and his actions after learning of 1973 were wholly consistent with that belief on his part. Now, if a majority of the committee really believes that a President of the United States should be impeached because of his honest good faith belief that the security of this Nation is in jeopardy, that decisive and bold action is required on his part, then so be it. But, ladies and gentlemen, you live with that judgment. History is going to judge you ill if You make that judgment. This is not a proper to grounds to impeach the President of the United States. I will yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 3 minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important for the members of this committee and the American people to appreciate exactly what the Plumbers did in the Fielding break-in. The Plumbers broke into Dr. Fielding's office. Dr Fielding was not under suspicion. They -went into his office in order to get his files on one of his patients. And I ask every doctor and lawyer and every insurance agent and accountant in the country what kind of a land would you be living in if a group of hired hands have the, power to come into your office in the dead of night in order to get one of your files? If the purpose was legitimate, why did they not obtain those files in a lawful manner? And the answer is of course, that the purpose was not legitimate. Who were the Plumbers? They were a band of hired hands. They were not law enforcement officials. Why was not the FBI brought into this matter if it were a legitimate matter for governmental actions? Because the Plumbers were doing absolutely illegal things that the FBI refused to do and that goes back to the Huston plan of the previous Year, when this staff person, Huston put forward to the President and had approved, a plan that involved surreptitious entry. His report stated "the activity involves illegal entry [00.35.44-00.35.55--no video] and trespass" and the FBI added a footnote to that report and said "The FBI is opposed to surreptitious entry." That same Huston report provided for covert coverage, and the FBI added a footnote and said "The FBI is Opposed to implementing any covert mail coverage because it is clearly illegal." They could not use the FBI because the FBI was not prepared to do these illegal things. Let us look at one other thing. From whence did the Plumbers get their money? Where did the money come from in order to do this operation? Ladies and gentlemen, it came from a private source, Mr. Baroody, a PR man here in Washington, a close friend of Mr. Colson's who states in an affidavit that in the" latter part of August or the early part of September "Mr. Colson telephoned me and told me that the White House had in urgent need for $5,000." So, he took $5,000 over to Colson's office and was told to go down to another office and give it to the fellow that he would find There. That fellow was Egil Krogh, the head of the Plumbers unit, So, Baroody goes down there with his $5,000 in cash and gives it to Krogh. Krogh was questioned before. the grand jury as follows: Question: Did You look in there to see what it was? Answer: I looked in the envelope to see this was money inside of it--It was in the form of -cash. Question: Had you stated to Mr. Colson 'anything about the form in which you wanted the funds, whether it should be in cash or not? Answer, I believe I specified cash. Question. Why did You specify cash? Answer. I believe because it was felt that there shouldn't be any way to trace the money that was to be used. The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes of the gentleman has expired. [00.37.31]